RF radiating appliances
Locked
 
|
My sister forwarded this link to me. I think this may be a different
issue than Bill AK5X is experiencing but non-the-less bothersome. http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=4330 Does anyone have any further information on this? David K0LUM ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
Very interesting article. ".18 Watts (frequency unspecified)" + "can't
be deactivated" If one finds the antenna, won't tin foil work? I can see lots of future postings on how to zap/deactive these transmitters. 73 de Brian/K3KO On 1/20/2012 21:03, David Christ wrote: > My sister forwarded this link to me. I think this may be a different > issue than Bill AK5X is experiencing but non-the-less bothersome. > > http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=4330 > > Does anyone have any further information on this? > > David K0LUM > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4755 - Release Date: 01/20/12 > > ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4755 - Release Date: 01/20/12 ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Christ
On 1/20/2012 1:03 PM, David Christ wrote:
> My sister forwarded this link to me. I think this may be a different > issue than Bill AK5X is experiencing but non-the-less bothersome. > > http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=4330 > > Does anyone have any further information on this? Does this mean I'll have to start inspecting my electricity to see if it's dirty? 73, Fred K6DGW - Northern California Contest Club - CU in the 2012 Cal QSO Party 6-7 Oct 2012 - www.cqp.org ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Christ
I caught the tin foil leaning. Also understand the remote meter
technology. They use it here and it has nothing to do with appliances. It was this sentence that caught my eye: Bosch customer service confirmed that both the washer and dryer we have on order contain power transmitters. What the heck they are and why they might be on continuously is beyond me. This is an unattributed report and is the stuff urban legends are made from. I'll probably be trying to follow this up. David K0LUM At 1:43 PM -0800 1/20/12, Ron D'Eau Claire wrote: >David, that looks like a web page from the folks who wear tinfoil hats to >protect themselves from cell towers. Before cell phones they were waging war >against the pervasive field from our A-C mains power systems. > >Many modern appliances radiate a lot of RF energy, but it's not for >communicating. It's noise from their internal switching power supplies or >other logic circuits. It's often a huge headache for Hams operating HF rigs >in the same house. > >The electrical power meters here do report wirelessly when the power company >vehicle drives by, but only when interrogated by a transmitter in the power >company reader's vehicle. That saves a lot of labor walking the >neighborhoods reading meters, especially in rural areas. There are other >forms of automatic meter reading in use too. This looks like a good rundown >of that technology: > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_meter_reading > >If people really see their electrical bills go up, IMHO it's because they >are using more electricity with their new RFI-producing "smart" appliances, >not because of a conspiracy by the power companies. More and more gadgets in >our homes are never fully "off", but keep a logic circuit alive. You know >that's true if it has a remote control, but a number of dishwashers, washing >machines, toasters, stoves, etc., are adopting the same technology, allowing >you to touch a membrane switch or touch screen to start them rather than >throwing a clunky 'mechanical' switch of some sort. They all add up to a >"parasitic" or "phantom" drain that is a growing part of our national >electrical demand and your energy bill. Here's more about that: > >http://icrontic.com/article/phantom_power > >It's a simple matter to read your own meter to monitor your usage for those >who don't trust the power company. > >73, Ron AC7AC > > >-----Original Message----- >My sister forwarded this link to me. I think this may be a different >issue than Bill AK5X is experiencing but non-the-less bothersome. > >http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=4330 > >Does anyone have any further information on this? > >David K0LUM Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by alsopb
*Hand Granade somebody?
TIC Gary * On 21 January 2012 07:15, Brian Alsop <[hidden email]> wrote: > Very interesting article. ".18 Watts (frequency unspecified)" + "can't > be deactivated" If one finds the antenna, won't tin foil work? > > I can see lots of future postings on how to zap/deactive these > transmitters. > > 73 de Brian/K3KO > > On 1/20/2012 21:03, David Christ wrote: > > My sister forwarded this link to me. I think this may be a different > > issue than Bill AK5X is experiencing but non-the-less bothersome. > > > > http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=4330 > > > > Does anyone have any further information on this? > > > > David K0LUM > > ______________________________________________________________ > > Elecraft mailing list > > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > > > > > > ----- > > No virus found in this message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4755 - Release Date: 01/20/12 > > > > > > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4755 - Release Date: 01/20/12 > > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html > -- Gary VK4FD - Motorhome Mobile Elecraft Equipment K3 #679, KPA-500 #018 Living the dream!!! ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Christ
Some interesting information on some of those links! One of the BIG
problems we face is what I call the "digital" mindset. What I mean by this is some of the late technology telemetry devices that use something other than what used to be called "analog" transmission and reception systems. The "digital" engineers don't seem to understand the "analog" RF world and the havoc some of the digital devices are causing, especially in increasing the background noise levels and EMI levels. Take just ONE factor like the "CFL" lamps. A lot of these are operating in the 20-60 Khz. region and generating a plethora of harmonics that cannot be filtered out! I have noticed since the wholesale promotion of the CFL, a remarkable increase in EMI levels on just the amateur bands. Most affected is 160 meters with lesser effects as the wavelength of the amateur band decreases. (harmonics get weaker as their frequency increases.) Too many of these devices causing EMI seem to be "protected" by FCC Part 15 rules, so people who encounter the EMI are left pretty much to their own devices to remedy the situation. In some instances this can be very difficult to overcome and remediate. (I will not go into the problems "Part 15" causes, this is a whole NEW and complex discussion in itself.!) I am sure there is a large degree of irrelevant connection to EMI/random noise generation and significant biological damage caused, but there may be indeed something to get alarmed about in some instances. I have no expertise in the "biological field" other than various papers I have read, some of which seem somewhat far-fetched. I do know that our LF/MF spectrum has gotten progressively noisier over the years especially as the "lower" parts of it are abandoned by the older "analog" use of it in communication and navigation technologies. This includes the spectrum from 10 Khz up thru the old shipboard CW and "beacon" bands, on thru the AM broadcast band into the "low" HF region to around 3-4 Mhz. The HF regions are becoming noisier too but not as intensely as the LF/MF regions discussed. A "classic" example of HF EMI has been already extensively discussed relative to the great "BPL" fiasco which the "digital" engineers had no real clue as to the intensity of the EMI generated/radiated in the HF spectrum. The "regulators" have forgotten that the radio spectrum at least from zero to VHF frequencies used to be recognized as a "public resource" but our "modern" FCC seems to be ignoring that "sermon" they used to preach about that issue. Can we "bottle up" the EMI for the benefit of both LF/MF/HF "analog" users of the electromagnetic spectrum generated by the enormous array of digital/switching devices so that present and future users of this space will still be able to "communicate" AND also not be biologically harmed by effects of the newer technology to the "old"? 73, Sandy Blaize W5TVW -----Original Message----- From: Ron D'Eau Claire Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 3:43 PM To: 'David Christ' ; [hidden email] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] RF radiating appliances David, that looks like a web page from the folks who wear tinfoil hats to protect themselves from cell towers. Before cell phones they were waging war against the pervasive field from our A-C mains power systems. Many modern appliances radiate a lot of RF energy, but it's not for communicating. It's noise from their internal switching power supplies or other logic circuits. It's often a huge headache for Hams operating HF rigs in the same house. The electrical power meters here do report wirelessly when the power company vehicle drives by, but only when interrogated by a transmitter in the power company reader's vehicle. That saves a lot of labor walking the neighborhoods reading meters, especially in rural areas. There are other forms of automatic meter reading in use too. This looks like a good rundown of that technology: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_meter_reading If people really see their electrical bills go up, IMHO it's because they are using more electricity with their new RFI-producing "smart" appliances, not because of a conspiracy by the power companies. More and more gadgets in our homes are never fully "off", but keep a logic circuit alive. You know that's true if it has a remote control, but a number of dishwashers, washing machines, toasters, stoves, etc., are adopting the same technology, allowing you to touch a membrane switch or touch screen to start them rather than throwing a clunky 'mechanical' switch of some sort. They all add up to a "parasitic" or "phantom" drain that is a growing part of our national electrical demand and your energy bill. Here's more about that: http://icrontic.com/article/phantom_power It's a simple matter to read your own meter to monitor your usage for those who don't trust the power company. 73, Ron AC7AC -----Original Message----- My sister forwarded this link to me. I think this may be a different issue than Bill AK5X is experiencing but non-the-less bothersome. http://emfsafetynetwork.org/?p=4330 Does anyone have any further information on this? David K0LUM ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4755 - Release Date: 01/20/12 ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
OTOH, There are FCC limits for unintentional radiators too. Yes
proving that those devices are radiating and making a case for FCC action may indeed be difficult, but from what I have found from various posts are that Plasma TVs may make a good "first test case". I cannot initiate anything myself because I do not have the problem - the nearest neighbor is 1/ mile away and does not have a plasma TV. 73, Don W3FPR On 1/20/2012 6:37 PM, Sandy wrote: > Some interesting information on some of those links! One of the BIG > problems we face is what I call the "digital" mindset. What I mean by this > is some of the late technology telemetry devices that use something other > than what used to be called "analog" transmission and reception systems. > The "digital" engineers don't seem to understand the "analog" RF world and > the havoc some of the digital devices are causing, especially in increasing > the background noise levels and EMI levels. > > Take just ONE factor like the "CFL" lamps. A lot of these are operating in > the 20-60 Khz. region and generating a plethora of harmonics that cannot be > filtered out! Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
I have S5 noise on 40m and S7-9 noise on 80m with a hf6v vertical antenna. I can almost live with the noise on 40m but on 80m it is almost not worthwhile using. All my other bands are basically S1/2 noise level all the time. On 6m I have a 15 db preamp and noise may go up to S4 at the worse.
Not sure if my noise levels are generated from my house or neighbors, but I plan to do a similar assessment to see what is going down. Keith AG6AZ Sent from my iPhone please excuse typos On Jan 20, 2012, at 4:40 PM, "Don Wilhelm" <[hidden email]> wrote: > OTOH, There are FCC limits for unintentional radiators too. Yes > proving that those devices are radiating and making a case for FCC > action may indeed be difficult, but from what I have found from various > posts are that Plasma TVs may make a good "first test case". I cannot > initiate anything myself because I do not have the problem - the nearest > neighbor is 1/ mile away and does not have a plasma TV. > > 73, > Don W3FPR > > On 1/20/2012 6:37 PM, Sandy wrote: >> Some interesting information on some of those links! One of the BIG >> problems we face is what I call the "digital" mindset. What I mean by this >> is some of the late technology telemetry devices that use something other >> than what used to be called "analog" transmission and reception systems. >> The "digital" engineers don't seem to understand the "analog" RF world and >> the havoc some of the digital devices are causing, especially in increasing >> the background noise levels and EMI levels. >> >> Take just ONE factor like the "CFL" lamps. A lot of these are operating in >> the 20-60 Khz. region and generating a plethora of harmonics that cannot be >> filtered out! > ______________________________________________________________ > Elecraft mailing list > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm > Post: mailto:[hidden email] > > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm-4
Unfortunately there are two parts to this, legal and social. Your
neighbor may have a device that is causing all sorts of illegal interference. Unfortunately your neighbor probably will not want to stop using his new $$$ whatever. For him it is working fine. So how do you get the interference mitigated without making enemies and starting a neighborhood war? My guess is that the rest of the neighbors will take his side not yours. No easy answer. The real solution is for manufacturers to design, test, and manufacture non RF polluting products. But because of lax standards and enforcement and the consumer market emphasis on low price will continue to foist these noisy products on us. My issue today is how do I keep from bringing a problem maker into my own home. Unfortunately there is no way to select non RF generating products. The specs don't say, the dealer doesn't know, the manufacturer isn't telling even if they know and chances are they have neither designed nor tested with RF issues in mind. It's a dead horse being beaten now so enough bandwidth has been wasted. Anyone have a source of wood powered appliances? David K0LUM At 7:39 PM -0500 1/20/12, Don Wilhelm wrote: >OTOH, There are FCC limits for unintentional radiators too. Yes >proving that those devices are radiating and making a case for FCC >action may indeed be difficult, but from what I have found from >various posts are that Plasma TVs may make a good "first test case". >I cannot initiate anything myself because I do not have the problem >- the nearest neighbor is 1/ mile away and does not have a plasma TV. > >73, >Don W3FPR > >On 1/20/2012 6:37 PM, Sandy wrote: >>Some interesting information on some of those links! One of the BIG >>problems we face is what I call the "digital" mindset. What I mean by this >>is some of the late technology telemetry devices that use something other >>than what used to be called "analog" transmission and reception systems. >>The "digital" engineers don't seem to understand the "analog" RF world and >>the havoc some of the digital devices are causing, especially in increasing >>the background noise levels and EMI levels. >> >>Take just ONE factor like the "CFL" lamps. A lot of these are operating in >>the 20-60 Khz. region and generating a plethora of harmonics that cannot be >>filtered out! ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
Here's one thing that works - "Dear neighbor, it has been determined that your (blank) is causing radio interference. It is not supposed to do this, so there is the possibility that it may be defective. Defective appliances have, unfortunately, been proven to be the cause of fatal house fires in the past. You can decide if you want to have such a device in your home." - Jim, KL7CC David Christ wrote: > <snip> So how do you get the interference mitigated without making enemies and starting a neighborhood war? My guess is that the rest of the neighbors will take his side not yours. No easy answer. <snip> ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Don Wilhelm-4
On 1/20/2012 4:39 PM, Don Wilhelm wrote:
> OTOH, There are FCC limits for unintentional radiators too. Yes > proving that those devices are radiating and making a case for FCC > action may indeed be difficult, but from what I have found from various > posts are that Plasma TVs may make a good "first test case". 47CFR15 defines three categories of radiators that it regulates [or attempts to]. Intentional: Most of the 2.4Ghz devices except ours, we actually have an allocation [good luck with that], BPL, smart meters, remote reading thermometers, garage door openers/closers. They radiate because they have to radiate in order to work. Unintentional: Computers, TV's, Ethernet devices. They don't need to radiate, but they need the signals internally, and unfortunately they radiate them. Incidental: Noisemakers. SWPS's, CFL's, motor controllers, Plasma TV's. They just generate the signals as a result of what they do, they don't need them, they just happen, and they radiate them. Two big problems for licensed services [that would be us in this conversation] with Part 15 regulation: Any of the three can create problems. It's up to us to find them, however the vast majority are consumer devices, purchased in ignorance of Part 15 but in good faith by your neighbors. How many of your neighbors do you want to make enemies of and take to the FCC? In some cases you can offer to fix ... very litigious society we now live in, I'm not going to do much of that. I do fix the fences, I've got good neighbors. Once some device or technology becomes ubiquitous [love that word!], it really doesn't matter if it is in violation of Part 15. If BPL really was a viable technology and really had caught on, how far into deployment would it take before the answer is, "Sorry, we can't un-deploy it." I really think it comes down to a question of how much enforcement do we want to pay for. Most products in the US are self-certified for compliance. True? Maybe, maybe not, but who's to know? The FCC is tax-supported and dwindling in size. 73, Fred K6DGW - Northern California Contest Club - CU in the 2012 Cal QSO Party 6-7 Oct 2012 - www.cqp.org ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jim Wiley-2
Unfortunately it may not have been designed to cause RFI but all too
often neither was it designed to not cause RFI. In other words it is not defective as it does everything the manufacturer promised and everything the consumer asked for. And, sad to say, it does a few other nasty things that don't cause problems for the buyer but do for his neighbors. The manufacturer never promised it wouldn't do those things. So from the manufacturer's point of view it is not defective. David K0LUM At 4:44 PM -0900 1/20/12, Jim Wiley wrote: >Here's one thing that works - "Dear neighbor, it has been >determined that your (blank) is causing radio interference. It is >not supposed to do this, so there is the possibility that it may be >defective. Defective appliances have, unfortunately, been proven >to be the cause of fatal house fires in the past. You can decide >if you want to have such a device in your home." > > >- Jim, KL7CC > > > >David Christ wrote: >><snip> >So how do you get the interference mitigated without making enemies >and starting a neighborhood war? My guess is that the rest of the >neighbors will take his side not yours. No easy answer. <snip> ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
Re: RF radiating appliances [END of Thread]
|
Administrator
|
We are exceeding the max number of posts for an OT subject in a short period. Please take this off list to direct email.
73, Eric Elecraft List Modulator www.elecraft.com _..._ ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by k6dgw
* On 2012 20 Jan 20:46 -0600, Fred Jensen wrote:
> I really think it comes down to a question of how much enforcement do we > want to pay for. Most products in the US are self-certified for > compliance. True? Maybe, maybe not, but who's to know? The FCC is > tax-supported and dwindling in size. There have been reports of products that include the space, etching, and markings for filter compoents but lack them. The inference is that the components were present during the certification process and then removed for production (draw your own conclusions :-). My conclusion is that such actions constitute a willful sale of a non-certified product and therefore should receive a notice of violation, etc. I disagree that the FCC is dwindling. The ratio of engineers/technicians to lawyers/bureaucrats continues to worsen, however, and has been in a negative state for some time. The primary roles of the FCC today is to serve as an auction house and act in the political interest of various interests (see BPL and Light Squared for prominent examples). 73, de Nate N0NB >> -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
Nate,
You might be interested to see what is happening in the UK. http://www.ban-plt.co.uk/ In addition our "Regulator" Ofcom is able to hide under the skirts of the European Union, who are also committed to doing nothing about product compliance in case it compromises the bottom line. 73 Stewart G3RXQ On Sat, 21 Jan 2012 07:30:43 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote: > * On 2012 20 Jan 20:46 -0600, Fred Jensen wrote: >> I really think it comes down to a question of how much enforcement do we >> want to pay for. Most products in the US are self-certified for >> compliance. True? Maybe, maybe not, but who's to know? The FCC is >> tax-supported and dwindling in size. > > There have been reports of products that include the space, etching, and > markings for filter compoents but lack them. The inference is that the > components were present during the certification process and then > removed for production (draw your own conclusions :-). My conclusion is > that such actions constitute a willful sale of a non-certified product > and therefore should receive a notice of violation, etc. > > I disagree that the FCC is dwindling. The ratio of > engineers/technicians to lawyers/bureaucrats continues to worsen, > however, and has been in a negative state for some time. The primary > roles of the FCC today is to serve as an auction house and act in the > political interest of various interests (see BPL and Light Squared for > prominent examples). > > 73, de Nate N0NB >> ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
|
|
In reply to this post by David Christ
I have read a couple of posts, and this is a very interesting topic for me with that I am going to be investigating in the house. As others have stated, certain appliances do radiate RF due to their power supplies and such. This is why it is important to shut down your house and bring it back up room by room/circuit by circuit and see what appliances generate RF. As I have said, it seems as if 40 Meters is almost useless at my location at certain times due to S9+ noise on the band from somewhere in the house or nearby.
73, David KC9EHQ ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[hidden email] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html |
«
Return to [HAM]
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |